Glossar-English:Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax

Sub-Item of: Sign Theories: Overview

Original: Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax

---

A ‘divide et impera’ proposal for semiotics In order to break down the complexity of studying signs to a more manageable level, Charles W. Morris ([Morris 1938a]Morris, Charles W. (1938): Foundations of the Theory of Signs. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Nicht angezeigt: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, I.2 , [Morris 1946a]Morris, Charles W. (1946): Signs, Language, and Behavior. Prentice-Hall, New York. ) introduced a division of semiotics into three areas, which he called ‘syntactics’, ‘semantics’ and ‘pragmatics’. [2] It should be possible to work on the questions in one area largely independently of the other areas: namely concerning aspects of the sign carrier, the meaning, or the use of the sign. However, this assumption of independence could not be confirmed. In general, it is not possible (apart from special cases) to formulate relationships of meaning independently of aspects of the use of signs, nor can the identity of sign carriers be meaningfully determined without knowledge of their meanings. Nonetheless, Morris's proposal for the classification of semiotic levels of investigation has not only survived – albeit in a modified form – it even dominates current semiotic undertakings in one or another modified form. However, the term ‘syntactics’ is mostly (and following Ferdinand de Saussure) replaced by ‘syntax’. In sign theories based on action theory, the three areas are now understood as questions of different scopes on aspects of sign (systems) that stand in a hierarchical relation to each other. The most comprehensive, pragmatic investigation deals with the complex of communication and other related actions, ie the embedding of the sign action in the life practice of the sign user. More restrictive in its subject area, semantics brings up the relationships between the sign carrier and what is represented that are relevant to the use of the sign, without considering the sign action as a whole – insofar as that is possible. Strictly speaking, syntactic investigations only deal with the relationships that exist between the sign carriers of a sign system, ie with relations between and properties of (physical) objects that (can) be used as signs. Exemplary questions in the three areas Pragmatics The questions examined within pragmatics can be exemplified as follows: [3] Which other actions are related to the considered sign action – which ones can or must have preceded, and which ones can or must follow? That, for example, the utterance of an assertion can either be answered directly by the communication partner accepting it (explicitly or tacitly) or communicatively rejecting it with an act of doubt (and thus demanding justification actions of his counterpart), or less directly by first using his sensorimotor equipment performs a suitable referential anchoring of the assertion and thus an empirical verification of what is asserted is all part of this language game of assertion. It is, therefore, both other sign actions (or more generally: communicative interactions) and non-communicative actions - in particular, the sensorimotor handling of the signed – that must be taken into account here. The situational embedding of the action of the sign plays a central role in pragmatic considerations: its context of use. This is of particular importance for all deictic sign elements, in which the corporeality of the sign user usually comes into play in a special way. Interpreted in terms of action theory as aspects of actions, the cognitive and intentional moments of the sign user [5 ] that are directly associated with the sign actions also belong in the focus of attention of pragmatics: This applies in particular to the presuppositions associated with the use of signs and the conclusions induced by them (‹implicatures›). The network of actions that occur in a systematic connection with the presentation of an image (conceived as a sign) can also be examined in a corresponding manner (⊳ Image Pragmatics). Semantics For a long time, semantics was at the center of semiotics, since phenomena of meaning provided its most important object of investigation. [7] Under the assumption that meaning relations are primary, while their communicative use is secondary, pragmatic considerations are subordinate to semantics. The pragmatic turn of the linguistic turn has reversed this dominance relationship: Here it is true that phenomena of meaning can only be viewed within a communicative framework (in the broad sense). They always remain related to the behavior of those communicating, so that the connection between the sign carrier and the signified can be determined in particular through the actions of the sign users among themselves relative to the signified. Typical semantic questions concern the nature of possible relationships of meaning. In addition to the behaviorist view mentioned in the previous section, a distinction is made between mentalistic and realistic theories of meaning – depending on whether meaning is constituted from behavior, from mental phenomena, or from a direct, purely physical (if not metaphysical) relationship between the sign carrier and the signified. The latter two tend towards semiotic concepts in which semantics dominates the pragmatic aspects. Irrespective of which of the three semantic views mentioned is pursued, a distinction should be made between an extensionalist perspective – i.e., one related to the referential scope – and an intensionalist perspective – one related to content characterizations: Extensional aspects are pursued in reference-semantic approaches. Peirce's tripartition of index, icon, and symbol, which breaks down the relation between sign carrier and signified according to causality, similarity, and conventionality, is also essentially semantic. Although iconicity is particularly closely linked to the relationship of meaning in images, the other aspects also play a role that cannot be neglected (⊳ image semantics). Syntactics / Syntax Since both aspects of the use and the meaning of sign carriers are to be disregarded, syntactical questions remain limited to the structure of sign carriers and the relations between them. [10] Since sign carriers (and thus also image carriers) are essentially characterized by their physical properties, (groups of) physical properties and their relationships to each other are the focus of interest. Syntactic considerations primarily concern the identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the sign carrier. If images are viewed as signs, the image-syntactic questions of identity, delimitability, distinguishability, compositionality, and well-formedness of the image carriers arise analogously (⊳ Image Syntax). Siehe auch: Ähnlichkeit Bildpragmatik Bildsemantik Bildsyntax Illokution Interaktion und Kommunikation Kontext Körper Linguistic turn, pictorial turn, medial turn Referenz Zeichen, Zeichenträger, Zeichensystem

Notes Literature [Davidson 2001a]Davidson, Donald (2001): Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Clarendon, Oxford.[Dürscheid 2010a]Dürscheid, Christa (2010): Syntax. Grundlagen und Theorien. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen [Grice 1970a]Grice, Herbert Paul (1970): Logic and Conversation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.[Katz & Fodor 1963a]Katz, Jerrold J. & Fodor, Jerry A. (1963): The Structure of a Semantic Theory. Language, 39, 2.[Kempson 1975a]Kempson, Ruth (1975): Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.[Lakoff 1972a]Lakoff , George (1972): On Generative Semantics. In: Steinberg, D. D. & Jakobovits, L. A. (Hg.), Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.[Levinson 1983a]Levinson, Stephen C. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.[Morris 1938a]Morris, Charles W. (1938): Foundations of the Theory of Signs. University of Chicago Press, Chicago [Morris 1946a]Der Eintrag existiert noch nicht.[Peirce 1983a]Peirce, Charles S. (1983): Phänomen und Logik der Zeichen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M.[Ros 1979a]Ros, Arno (1979): Objektkonstitution und elementare Sprachhandlungsbegriffe. Hain, Königstein/Ts.[Sennholz 1985a]Sennholz, Klaus (1985): Grundzüge der Deixis. Brockmeyer, Bochum Version 1: 2013 Responsible: Schirra, Jörg R.J. Editing: Halawa, Mark Contributions by: Joerg R.J. Schirra und Marcel Lemmes — (Note) Quote as: [Schirra 2013g-w]Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Pragmatik, Semantik, Syntax. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Pragmatik,_Semantik,_Syntax]. Webadresse: bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Pragmatik,_Semantik,_Syntax Schirra, Jörg R.J. (2013). Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax. (Ausg. 1). In: Schirra, J.R.J.; Halawa, M. & Liebsch, D. (Hg.), Glossar der Bildphilosophie. (2012-2026). [bildglossar.org/index.php?title=Glossar-English:Pragmatics,_Semantics,_Syntax].